Ultra Short Training Rushall

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:19:50 GMT

By this you mean that your rest does not allow for the aerobic system to fully recover right? Because anaerobic work pretty much requires the aerobic system to be at 100%. 1. Rushall is a professor, not a swim coach. He doesn't have to deal with boredom... or um... he is the producer of bor... :bolt: 2. He dislikes equipment because it has been show statistically to not improve performance, and thus a waste of time. He is not a coach and he has not studied non-elite swimmers. He doesn't have to keep swimmers engaged (the primary driver to toys) and he hasn't studied swimmers who can't achieve near competition speed at near competition distance. 3. I agree. 4. He is not against rehearsal swims. I would have to dig through his 8 million papers to find the details but he is pro racing and pro frequent shave and taper meets or the equivalent and anti trainForOneMeetAYear. Since he is not a coach, he does not have to worry about keeping swimming interesting 1. Rushall coached international level swimmers before he retired. He consults with a number of swim clubs, particularly in Australia. 2. He discourages the use of equipment because they violate the most fundamental principle of adaptation to training in sports, the principle of specificity. Not only is it not productive work, it confuses the good motor patterns. Perhaps there are ways to engage swimmers without the use of toys? Perhaps video feedback work (which few coaches seem to have time for) or mental skills training would be engaging? 3. What is missing from USRP for "speed training?" 4. "If you don't do rehearsal swims, how do you learn to pace for race"... that's the whole point of USRP... you learn to know by FEEL what, say, "1.5 m/s" feels like. USRP will groove that pattern more consistently than something like 6 x 100 free on 3 min (one type of "sprinter set") or 2x "all out free rehearsal swim". That's it for me for this morning. Feel free to put up more questions.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:08:16 GMT

No not at all. Not a matter of not believe he'd recommend such a radical approach, but rather that if he had done it, it would be explicit obviously. Bare in mind that this paper was NOT published to be read and interpreted by swimmers themselves, as it wouldn't be fair to assume that they know what Phosphocreatine is. www.roble.net/.../rushall7.html It would be fair to say that coach's may not know the terminology either, and the ATP-CP system is (briefly) covered in high school freshman biology. The concepts are definitely accessible to swimmers without official coaching organization certification (I was one of them). After you've read a paper like this, how could one see any other form of training as valuable? If you buy that specificity matters, and you care about racing, why would one choose not to swim at race pace? As for "ultra short", the structure allows you to maximize racepace volume by letting the alactacid system recovery in between every round, optimizing the amount of useful work you are able to do... It's pretty clear we're interpreting this substantially differently. Maybe you have some other data to suggest Rushall feels UST should be seen as just a part of an overall plan. OTOH, I'm taking what he's written in the article at face value. I believe he's advocating UST as the best form of training to use--not just some subset of the overall training plan. To me it's clear he's suggesting that UST covers all the physiological needs of training and doing anything else is in some way sub-optimal compared to UST--even including dry land conditioning and weights. Right on point. He has a point, effort matters more than distance, but distance is the most commonly tracked and discussed. Specificity reigns above all else (even effort). If someone is "giving 100%" but they can't even approach their 50 pace for a 100 or 200, there is a problem with the set. No not at all. Not a matter of not believe he'd recommend such a radical approach, but rather that if he had done it, it would be explicit obviously. Bare in mind that this paper was NOT published to be read and interpreted by swimmers themselves, as it wouldn't be fair to assume that they know what Phosphocreatine is. Also, like I explained you earlier, *your* interpretation of this chart, I mean if you were a coach, what you're arguing about, would be the equivalent of putting an elite squad on severe volume diet, only made of HIT or UST, which obviously doesn't make any sense. It would, it if was the case, call for an explicit mention. The minimal session duration for a sprinter varsity level is 4.5k I'd say? So you'd be, if you were a head coach applying Rushall's theory shrinking this down by at least 30%, which calls for an explicit mention. 4.5 * 9 sessions = 40k, not excessive for a world class sprinter. The other thing, like I also explained you, is that they train 2wice a day on a few days per week, whereas this paper suggests this approach for a daily basis. Again, if it was recommended to perform this 2wice a day, a mention would be explicit. And there he would have to demonstrate that it's good thing to book race pace work at 15 to 6 AM, and there (without having done any research), I think evidence must exist to suggest it wouldn't fit all your swimmers. Bare in mind that in a squad of 40, you may have 1 or 2 contenders for Olympics selection, no more (well, sometimes more but you know what I mean). If these two aren't geared for hard work in AM, you'd be missing the boat. So these factors are far too important to be kept implicit. Thanks for bringing this table to my attention. By the way, Rushall is alive, and quite easy to reach I believe. Feel free to ask this question if you want. He's no evil. He pisses coaches off, but without crossing the line what would make him as a publisher, entirely irrelevant. Here's anohter example of his works, again there. Not bad, not wrong, but it shakes things up for sure, and pisses coaches (at least those who swear on a Periodized approach) off. www.roble.net/.../rushall7.html I think you guys are making a very clear point that Rushall is dismissing most of these activities as being potentially good enough to influence performances at race pace. That said, let us put it this way. Would you be kind enough to point to volume cut recommendation? Overall that is? I'm being very sincere here. Could you find me a place in the document where he'd recommend say, a volume of 24k per week for distance swimmers, as 2500 of main set + 1.5 kilo of irrelevant stuff (4k * 6 times per week) to beat Sun Yang? Could you find a place where he'd recommend a volume cut for a mid distance, say.... 1500 + 1500 = 3k * 6 = 18k per week to beat Phelps over the 400m IM? If this is really what you guys believe, no wonder why you'd be skeptical about his thoughts. If you do find these mentions, I'd like to know. Cause I'm simply going to put the jerk on my black list and forget about this crap. Good luck to any head coach trying to prepare a distance swimmer for a world class qualification (even the Worlds Aquatics) on 24k per week. I made clear in my very first post, I hate Rushall, and part of the reason why is that he's making several people wasting considerable time... That's 1k * 6 times per week = 6kilo of significant work for preparing to beat the best sprinters in the world.... So to me, if it's really what he meant, he has no point at all. 2h per day * 6 = 12h * 52 = 624h of training for the year, that's still under Bompa's recommandation for reaching fair national level, regarless of the sport (since Bompa's work encompass all sports). In fact, this schedule is that of a serious Master Swimmer. I think that 2.5 kilo of race relevant work per day would be more useful than 10 kilo of non-race relevant work per day, mainly because I'm not seeing a physiological mechanism by which experienced swimmers would benefit from an extra 7.5k of "general fitness" per day. On senior teams, can you predict who would win a race based on test set performance... there are numerous studies showing the difference in "fitness level" (lactate thresh, VO2 max, etc) is not a predictor of who would win a race at the elite level... the discriminator is technique, which is honed through training specifically at race pace. ON drilling: If you get tired of the swimming reading, here's his foray against baseball drills which also explains why they don't "improve technique" in swimmers either www.pitching.com/.../

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:52:01 GMT

There has been a renewed interest in Ultra-Short Race Pace Training in light of the success of a very successful age group swimmer, Michael Andrew. (If you have not heard of him, here are his times from a recent article. He has multiple 11-12 National Age Group Records. Michael trains exclusively with Ultra-Short Race Pace training. Andrew swam a 1:50.54 in the 200 IM at the Jenks Sectional Championship meet last weekend to hit his first Winter Senior Nationals qualifying time.... ...In other races, Andrew this weekend nearly matched his best time in the 50 free with a 20.96, and also swam best times in the 100 free (46.06), 100 back (51.05), 100 *** (57.03), and 100 fly (49.72), all of which rank him very high on the National Age Group All-Time lists. If you’d like to interact with other coaches and swimmers exploring USRP, or have any general questions, I’m setting up a discussion group. I've corresponded with Dr. Rushall extensively, and have been personally utilizing forms of USRP for almost a year now. Send an email to info (at) swimmingscience.net with “Cam USRP Group” in the subject line, and I’ll be in touch. I know this is an old thread, but I'd like to address a few of the concerns expressed previously. I came quite late in this discussion, not sure this particular point's been correctly addressed later, but work duration must be short, as one of the key principle in this form of training, well, I'd say are: - Avoiding glycogen depletion - Avoiding severe acidosis - Therefore relying on ATP-CP (Creatine Phosphate, sorry I wrote it in french) So any interpretation to the effect that one could swim bouts of 75 or 100y is undoubtedly a misinterpretation, as it would violate all these principles. The first two premises are on point as reasons why the work and rest durations have been kept short. However, 75y/100y are very well suited to training for the 500/1000/1500. It's not "isolating/relying on ATP-CP" (alactacid energy system) that matters so much as stimulating whatever energy systems are relevant to the race. It's interesting how swim training seems as subject to fashion trends as, well, fashion. Not too long ago, the disciples of Alexander Popov were following an approach that, it seemed to me, boiled down to this: Swim with perfect form but in relatively slow motion. No need to exert yourself! Now, courtesy of Mr. or Dr. Rushall, a new view has emerged: swim super fast, but only for short bursts. No need to build up muscle-pain-inducing compounds (I know lactic acid is off the hook now, but not sure what the new villain is that causes swimming pain. I know something does!). To be sure, I doubt whether Popov or Rushall intended their respective approaches to be ways to avoid, well, hurting during practice! But I think there are more than a few swimmers anxious to find something that 100 percent kiboshes the old chestnut: No pain no gain. Popovian super easy or Rushallian super short, I can see the seduction of both. I just don't think any extreme approaches are likely to pan out as the panaceas their devotees are hoping for. Both probably have some benefits, and I am not one to advocate suffering for suffering's sake. But some degree of significant suffering from training is likely to be inescapable for those hoping to achieve their own peak performance. To think otherwise, in this layman's opinion, is wishful thinking. To be precise, Rushall's "Super fast" advocacy is to match what you'd be expected to deliver during a race. In fact, if you aren't able to operate at your race pace (say, 1.5 m/s for your 50) for the duration of a USRP set, swimming at 2.0 m/s for reps of 7.5 m wouldn't be useful. Swum properly, a USRP set is very much "full of pain"... but at least that pain was induced by patterns that the brain will actually use during competition. And likewise, I don't think Rushall is recommending the abandon of what will forever constitute the majority of any swimmer's menu, ie the relatively low level work. Even if an elite did spend 4-5 hours booking ultra short intervals, you're still left with at last double this time doing something else. The USRP sets are divided by super-easy recovery sets of at least equal duration, as explained in the paper... this is pretty much the only "low level work". To reap the full benefits of USRP, the other stuff (hypoxic, aerobic "threshold pace" sets, "lactate threshhold sets") will have to be cut. It was hard for me to cut this stuff out, but it has been worthwhile. There are a lot more comments I'd like to address, but I'm not sure how many of them have been resolved by you guys already, so I'll just put a few more things out there USRP does not apply to drills or "kicking sets" unless you have drill-races or "kicking races" at local meets. Technique does not "stack" For people who have gotten used to it, USRP can be performed more than once per day (eg Michael). Tabata is a totally different animal that involves training at 170% of your VO2 max when hooked up to special lab equipment. Not "HIIT" or "USRP" at all.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 08:02:08 GMT

The benefit of USt in my opinion is that you can sprint more meters in one training then if you would do for instance 6 x 50 all out with plenty of rest. USS trains the nerv muscular system and I feel that this is helping me getting through a race. For me, I have to concentrate on so many things, like rotation, hand entry, butt high, flutter kick, pushing below hips, and so on. I am capable of doing this in normal pace on 70 % or so, but still not good enough in race pace. This is getting rapidly better now.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 06:55:42 GMT

That's very interesting. One thing I think worth considering is whether the bulk of the improvement is due specifically to the ust regime or just to a more sprint-focused training regime (regardless of specific emphasis). That is an interesting question. What you saying is that the improvement could also occur if I had done another method in sprinttraining?

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

smontanaro — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 03:26:46 GMT

Yes, possibly, though with a sample point of one it's just speculation. Given my experience with "typical" masters swim workouts, they seem to be much less focused on the sort of high quality sprint-specific traing exemplified by UST or Leslie's HIT workouts. Rich Abrahams also focused heavily on race pace work when he was going after the 50 free record in 2010.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:27:21 GMT

So the last 4 weeks I have been using this training method 1 to 2 times a week. In a 50 meter lane, sprinting 12,5 meters freestyle, then 12,5 meters *** (20 seconds) and so on. I was capable of doing around 30 sprints maximum in a first session to now 2 sets of 40 sprints. So I swim in one training 80 x 12,5 m = 1000 m sprint. Still making the mistake to swim afap, instead of the 100 m race pace. Best time on the 100 meter freestyle dropped from 1.07.45 in august to 1.05.22 last weekend. Best time on the 50 from 30.45 tot 29.35 in the same period. But: also interesting: best time on the 200 m from 2.35 to 2.29 So I am happy with the results and will keep on using this way of training as I personally feel that: - Both anaerobic as aerobic capacity improve - I get used to the race pace and skills involved. More confident in the race. PS: I swim in the 50+ category.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

smontanaro — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:05:47 GMT

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:53:57 GMT

My pontifications: Ultra Short Training is based on a hypothesis about energy systems and neuro-muscular training. It may be a breakthrough or not.Try it for yourself. Rushall has many interesting ideas and hypotheses,read him and judge for yourself what is wheat and what is chaff. After having calm down a bit, and more importantly after having fully understood this analysis that got me a bit mad, I have to agree. Ignore my comments, they were disgraceful. I still want to leave them there, as it's usually the impact Rushall's work have on several coaches. Yet, these works have their importance. For what it's worth, his ideas on focusing on neuro-muscular component rather than energy system driven fitness development are perfectly in line with Total Immersion's thoughts. Thanks Allen.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Allen Stark — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:06:59 GMT

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:33:20 GMT

Because he misspoke about Sun Yang's kick? This seems a little severe to me. Everyone has its standards. He writes as a scientist, not as a blogger, not as a coach. Science should be about precision. The role of science over the history has been important to human, in the medical field for example. There, what we expect from scientists is their best possible precision in everything they do. They are revised by their peers etc.... He had 60 lengths of the pool to find out that Sun is rarely feeding on 2bk, and yet he claims that Sun did no less than the first 1400m relying on it. Now the question is why? Why? Because as always, Rushall is trying to turn his beliefs into truths. He believes (reading this text) that the 2bk pattern is not good enough to swim on pace for a world record using this. OK. Nice statement. Nice clue. But the only problem is that the subject he uses to make his point is not even using this pattern. He's trying to make a point about a fact that is wrong! Trying to discourage swimmer to feed on a 2b, whilst very little in reality even try to do. He's one step behind, as clearly, he didn't demonstrate that he even know what a 4bk is. In fact, try to find a single occurrence of a successful male, performing a 1500m in a pool on a 2bk, other than David Davies along with a few other probable exceptions. So this is a very severe mistake. Like I said, 4bk pattern is documented since 1980 at least, so a minimally trained eye should detect it. Moreover, the 4bk is used very extensively by most males over the 800-1500 events. Scientists must know these things. We expect more precision from their side, than that a coach would get, as science basically is the ultimate means through which things are being analyzed. He's a scientist, I'm a coach. He keeps questioning our works, our relevance, our ability to apply evidence based practices, he can't even count up to 4. So put yourself in my shoes... I left aside my opinion on his final conclusion, although I made a quick allusion to it: His take is that D.Swimmers overglide, and that because of that they fail at improving the world records as much as other swimmers in other distances. The only main problem with this position, is that an overglider did beat a swinger in London 2012, the proof remains in the pudding in my opinion. I have affiliation with Swim Smooth, not with TI, so normally I should be pleased with his conclusion. Unfortunately his conclusion can't even be used, because it's based on a flawed analysis. Sad. Not sure if Paul Newsome will be tempted to use this analysis or not, but I'd recommend that he doesn't since it's flawed.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:54:14 GMT

I should have said that the videos and still pictures are great and that the commentary is pure Rushell. LOL No but seriously, he really lost all his credibility now, as far as I'm concerned. In case he reads: Brent, Sun has been consistently displaying a 4bk as his most used pattern, ever since he was 18yo I believe. A 4bk is a combination of a 2bk and a 6bk. In fact, Sun displays such a pattern in accordance with the description made by Ernest Maglischo, ie the 3 flutter kicks generally occur whilst *not* breathing, which is different than the pattern use by Hackett, like a lot of other males in the field, tend to flutter kick 3 times whilst breathing. And like most 4b kickers, he sometimes displays a few cycles using 2bk, and a few cycles displaying the 6bk, probably depends on how he *feels*. The 4bk pattern was first seriously documented in Swimming Faster, first edition, published in 1980 (32y ago)!!!!! How can you could claim yourself a *scientist* poluting the web with your works full of flaws, and miss such a crucial aspect of his performance, especially that you have 60 lengths of the pool to notice it!!! And yet, you take a position in regards to drills or swim technique in general? Come on.... Swimming is too complex for you I believe.... First learn, then teach!

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:13:50 GMT

Here is the link to his website.The"How Champions Do It"section is especially good. coachsci.sdsu.edu/.../index.htm Funny as I was coming here to post the same link. Good? Hmmm I donno. "Sun Yang swam the first 1,400 meters of the race with a two-beat kick." I'd rather call this dead wrong. Any time of the day I'd say, since I've never seen Sun relying on a 2bk. If you can't even count up to 4.... "Overtaking strokes are relatively common in male distance freestylers. The inherent errors of motion and undesirable limitations of that stroking format could be argued as being the principal reason why the men's 1,500 m race has improved the least of all swimming races and strokes over the past decade (even despite the introduction of the performance-enhancing super suits)." Yeah except that the second position at this race was won by a swimmer displaying an elevated stroke rate (no overtaking).

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

knelson — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:54:04 GMT

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

knelson — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:18:35 GMT

No but seriously, he really lost all his credibility now, as far as I'm concerned. Because he misspoke about Sun Yang's kick? This seems a little severe to me.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Allen Stark — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:27:27 GMT

Funny as I was coming here to post the same link. Good? Hmmm I donno. "Sun Yang swam the first 1,400 meters of the race with a two-beat kick." I'd rather call this dead wrong. Any time of the day I'd say, since I've never seen Sun relying on a 2bk. If you can't even count up to 4.... "Overtaking strokes are relatively common in male distance freestylers. The inherent errors of motion and undesirable limitations of that stroking format could be argued as being the principal reason why the men's 1,500 m race has improved the least of all swimming races and strokes over the past decade (even despite the introduction of the performance-enhancing super suits)." Yeah except that the second position at this race was won by a swimmer displaying an elevated stroke rate (no overtaking). I should have said that the videos and still pictures are great and that the commentary is pure Rushell.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:11:17 GMT

But 1500m in a 1 50m pool would be only 10 lengths. :confused: Where's the mathematician (Mike)? LOL, I mean 1 50m pool as in one 50m pool in the whole town. Hard to believe I know. That town being the second largest town in a province that is the biggest one in the whole country. Things have improved now, they count 2 50m pools, as in two 50m pools.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:32:12 GMT

1500 LCM is 30 lengths of the pool. If you can't even count, all credibility lost, etc :) :blush: (can you tell that in the town where I learned my job, there was only 1 50m pool?)

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 05:43:18 GMT

A week ago: "It's important in reading and making our own sense out of such a text to better understand who Brent Rushall is. His texts aren't always easy to accept among coaches, because he's been consistent over the decades in questioning how *we* (since I'm a coach) train our swimmers. And he's right I believe. As time goes by, stuff he's written a long time ago hasn't made as much sense as it does now. . . . My opinion (which is worth nothing compared to Rushall's) is that they're still a need to fully train the anaerobic capacity. On a more philosophical note, I don't think US swimming world needs Rushall as much as the Canadian swimming world does." Today: "No but seriously, he really lost all his credibility now, as far as I'm concerned. . . . How can you could claim yourself a *scientist* poluting the web with your works full of flaws, and miss such a crucial aspect of his performance, especially that you have 60 lengths of the pool to notice it!!! And yet, you take a position in regards to drills or swim technique in general? Come on.... Swimming is too complex for you I believe.... First learn, then teach!" “He keeps questioning our works, our relevance, our ability to apply evidence based practices, he can't even count up to 4. So put yourself in my shoes...” * * * Quite a turnaround! Quick? I've been bugged by his theories and often ending up defending them since 2004. I was just waiting for a clear, clear example of his incompetency. 2bk vs 4bk, over 60 laps of the pool is one clear example, irrefutable. I couldn't find an irrefutable example in his crappy paper on institutionalized over training. Some in this thread have raised to my attention that he's been consistent in questioning the importance of drilling! (I learned about it here in this thread). But again there, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But again, 2b vs 4bk, that's a Level 1 beginner coach mistake! You can't find any more basic mistake than not being able to count up to 4. At one point, it's time to pull the plug. Here's a post made by a *swimmer* not a coach, in his 50s, having began swimming no more than 2 years ago. www.swimsmoothforum.com/viewtopic.php How can a not certified person, enthusiast, 2min / 100m swimmer can clearly see it, and Rushall, phd, miss it? www.swimsmoothforum.com/viewtopic.php I'll try to find him, send him the link to this particular thread, and see if he agrees for a 3 round against a coach that did not even study science. We'll see... *edit* Done, email sent. *edit 2* He answered.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 05:03:13 GMT

What I'd like to see is a well thought out analysis of Sun's London 1500 swim and why he was able to swim so much faster over that distance than anyone has before. He does some things very unconventionally, like breathing into and out of the turns, but he's clearly doing lots of things right. What are these things? That's what interests me. Swim Smooth did a fun and relevant one. I'll try to find it. But Knelson, you asked a very good question. I'd like to complete my previous answer. Reason why my standard toward science is so high, is that there remain a lot of mysteries in swimming. Effectively applying weight shifts to the task, is only one example. These things are hidden. Extremely hard to quantify (therefore out of science's reach). Yet we often read that coaching should be evidence based. All right. I buy this. Coaching should be evidence based. But for that, we need evidence right? I wish science could really help unfolding as many of these mysteries as possible. But again, these are very hardcore topics for most of these mysteries, requiring very hot skills. If you can not identify that a swimmer is issuing 4 leg kick per arm cycle, when this is NO mystery at all. It's there, you see it, you just can not miss it. If you can't even see this, how on earth could you help coaches with more complex stuff? When they start talking in words I don't understand, about things that are new to me, I have to find a way to know if they're reliable or not. Well Rushall isn't. So whenever he talks stuff I don't understand, I can't believe him. Not if he overlooks things (which I do understand) that are extremely basic and simple, and irrefutable. "Some would rather be known, than be right" (A. Coggan). Here, 2 blog entries. Not a complete analysis though. Swim Smooth's main interest in regards to Sun was to analyze how much time is spent not applying propulsive forces. Swim Smooth did not comment on his leg kicking pattern, they really focused on the overgliding (or not) aspect. Swim Smooth position on leg kick is a pragmatic one. 2bk is great, but if you can not get it done perfectly, you're probably faster with a mild 6bk. Since they strongly insist on bilateral breathing, they can not recommend the 4bk, as this is more typical of unilateral breathers. www.feelforthewater.com/.../our-review-strokes-of-london-2012.html www.feelforthewater.com/.../our-stroke-analysis-two-best-1500m.html

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Former Member — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 05:00:45 GMT

...I left aside my opinion on his final conclusion, although I made a quick allusion to it: His take is that D.Swimmers overglide, and that because of that they fail at improving the world records as much as other swimmers in other distances. The only main problem with this position, is that an overglider did beat a swinger in London 2012, the proof remains in the pudding in my opinion. I have affiliation with Swim Smooth, not with TI, so normally I should be pleased with his conclusion. Unfortunately his conclusion can't even be used, because it's based on a flawed analysis. Sad. Not sure if Paul Newsome will be tempted to use this analysis or not, but I'd recommend that he doesn't since it's flawed. You can't call Sun Yang an overglider. The pause at his catch is about 0.1 seconds.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

__steve__ — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 04:06:41 GMT

But 1500m in a 1 50m pool would be only 10 lengths. :confused: Where's the mathematician (Mike)?

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Tchaik — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 03:13:42 GMT

Quick? I've been bugged by his theories and often ending up defending them since 2004. I was just waiting for a clear, clear example of his incompetency. 2bk vs 4bk, over 60 laps of the pool is one clear example, irrefutable. I couldn't find an irrefutable example in his crappy paper on institutionalized over training. Some in this thread have raised to my attention that he's been consistent in questioning the importance of drilling! (I learned about it here in this thread). But again there, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But again, 2b vs 4bk, that's a Level 1 beginner coach mistake! You can't find any more basic mistake than not being able to count up to 4. At one point, it's time to pull the plug. Here's a post made by a *swimmer* not a coach, in his 50s, having began swimming no more than 2 years ago. www.swimsmoothforum.com/viewtopic.php How can a not certified person, enthusiast, 2min / 100m swimmer can clearly see it, and Rushall, phd, miss it? www.swimsmoothforum.com/viewtopic.php I'll try to find him, send him the link to this particular thread, and see if he agrees for a 3 round against a coach that did not even study science. We'll see... *edit* Done, email sent. I wouldn't be surprised if he declines that invitation.

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

That Guy — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:11:12 GMT

RE: Ultra Short Training Rushall

Tchaik — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 01:35:21 GMT